Talk:Fart lighting/Archive 1

Comment
I'm not sure about the validity of the second purpose of lighting farts, but don't have a problem with it lol.. anyone else? FartDoctor 08:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment
This possibly outdoes my inadvertent creation of the nose-picking article! We should maybe add a disclaimer that it's possibly dangerous ... isn't it? I wouldn't know, I'm not a practiser... -- Tarquin 21:09 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * Fart lighting is dangerous, both burns and explosions can occur. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether you use a Bic or Zippo; the contrary remark in the article that shows it to be fundamentally unserious, and not an encyclopedic article, as nose-picking certainly is.  If this were a serious article, it would say when and why people do it (15 year old boys on camping trips, mostly) and also mention problems in operating rooms, etc, that old boy scout, Ortolan88


 * Does flame enter the anal cavity at all? - &#35918&#30505


 * Dunno. Could be.  Why not?  You can find movies on the web.  Used to be a whole page of people getting knocked down, catching fire, burning others, etc.  Proof of the axiom that the essence of humor is that it is something terrible happening to someone else.  Ortolan88
 * I disagree. I think a people's sense of humour merely reflects the basic social nature of that ethnicity.

Damn it is a dangerous sport. I advice the author to reconsider this article. On a second thought, I am starting to question the viability of the current biofuel proposals and its alleged mission to save Mankind from the verge of WWIII.


 * No one seems to want to make an article of this, so it should be deleted. Labelling it a joke is a non-solution. Ortolan88

Agreed. A brief mention of the practice on flatulence maybe -- Tarquin 16:45 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

move
Since this is no longer a "how to" article, I have just moved it to Lighting farts. Now we can all write encyclopaedic content about the practice, without fear that anyone will take it as a recommendation... -- Oliver P. 00:29 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm so embarrassed. My treatment of fart lighting was POV! Ortolan88

Since this is an encyclopaedia, shouldn't this article have a more formal title than "lighting farts"?


 * How formal can anything involving flatulence possibly get?
 * There are formal scientific studies which sniff out the facts on the subject.

notable f.l.
I think this article could benefit from some words about the earliest recorded fart lightings, and maybe some of the more famous practitioners (real, as opposed to cartoon). I don't think South Park is the only or even the most pre-eminent reference that can be made... I think this is a subject which should be covered with attention to detail befitting an encyclopædia. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:30, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

commoness
The overly broad statement on commonness needs to be clarified, probably to say it's like that in the US or wherever. --Shallot 00:37, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it
From the article:


 * Contrary to popular belief, only animal farts consist of flammable methane gas from the bacteria in one of their stomachs. Human farts consist entirely of oxygen, which is still flammable.

Not even counting the the misspelling of flammable I plain don't believe this is true. I believe, but do not know with enough confidence to put it in the article, that all farts, animal and human, contain hydrogen (yellow flame) and that most animal and some human farts contain methane (blue flame). Humans either are or are not "methane carriers", as I understand it. I'm also pretty sure that oxygen is not a major component, and furthermore, does not burn in the sense meant here. Ortolan88 03:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * See flatulence. It says mostly nitrogen, but containing oxygen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and methane as well. Definitely a flammable mixture. grendel|khan 09:23, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Methane
Because you refuse to belive this scientific fact I shall elaborate. For my following example I shall use a cow as the herbivore, but the following is true of any herbivore.

A cow's diet consists wholly of vegetation, specifically grass. Cows get their energy from the cellulose in the grass. However if a cow digested grass in the same way as a carnivore or an omnivore digests meat, it would get no useful nutrients from the grass, and would waste more energy eating than it obtains from the food. This is because to digest cellulose a certain enzyme is required - cellulase. The cow cannot produce cellulase itself, so it needs something else to digest the cellulose itself. This is why the cow passes the grass, which has already been digested in its stomach, into another, seperate "stomach". This "stomach" contains bacteria that can produce cellulase. This bacteria digests the cellulase, and the cow digests the bactaria. This is a mutual relationship - the cows gat the benefits of digested cellulose, and the bacteria gets a warm place to live. However, one by-product of the reaction between cellulose and cellulase is methane. This metane passes through the cow's digestive system and is passed outof the cow's anus. Incidentally, this methane is a major cause of the deterioration in the ozone layer, and the hole in it.

Humans don't have the problem of digesting cellulose because of our varied diet - even vegetarians don't have this problem because they eat other things to grass, which is one of the most difficult plants to extract celluose from. Therefore humans haven't evolved to need the cellulase producing bacteria, and have no methane in the digestive tract. So if it isn't methane that's being igited, what is it?

To answer this, allow me to take a look at the composition of the air that comprises our atmosphere. It consists primarily of nitrogen, which is 78.1% of the atmosphere. Next is oxygen, which makes up 20.9% of the atmosphere. Then there is argon, only 0.9% of the atmosphere. The remaining 0.01% of the atmosphere is water vapour and other gasses, but these are hardly significant in affecting things such as ignition. When we light a fire, be it a match or a bonfire, what you are burning is oxygen. It is the promenentt flammable gas in the atmosphere, and so, the only flammable gas that can enter our digestive system. Therefore, when we pass wind, we are passing oxygen. There is no way whatsoever that we could concivably be passing methane. Since oxygen is also flammable, only slightly less so than methane, the farts that people light ignite. To test this, light a fart and it WILL burn with an orange flame. Forget any past concepts you had about the colour of the flame or the gas that is being lit, YOU WILL BE LIGHTING OXYGEN.

Thank You. --Dannish 08:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Stunning, to write such a long statement and end up getting it totally wrong? One would guess that oxygen isn't a fuel but an oxidizer. And for the record flatus contains fules like hydrogen and in some cases methane. It appears that presence of methane in human flatus is a genetic trait. Hdw 10:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, hell. Why not. Combustion is the chemical process wherein a gas and another substance combine to release heat. Because oxygen is a very, very reactive gas, and comparatively plentiful, most of the time that gas is in fact oxygen. However, the oxygen needs to react with something. If oxygen would "burn" all by itself, you'd cause a very, very big disaster if you lit a match in air. Oxygen will react with most hydrocarbons, including methane, which is created by a variety of bacteria, not just those living in cows.


 * In short: You can't "light oxygen". The idea doesn't make sense. grendel|khan 18:36, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

--A much better way to state what danish dude is saying would be to say that fire needs 3 three things to burn: Heat, Fuel, and Oxygen. Obviously Oxygen doesnt burn by itself, if it did then there would be no need for fuel, which would mean that if you lit a candle it would burn until the end of the world...
 * I have no idea how this crazy article thing works*

from Vfd
On 14 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Votes for deletion/Lighting farts for a record of the discussion. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * notice added at top of talk page with link. Benjiboi 18:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * Flatulence ignition &rarr; Fart lighting. Common names are policy, unless there's a real technical term that's more accurate. Such isn't the case here. grendel|khan 17:06, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * ''Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~


 * Support. Kappa 18:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The page move to the current one was done in the first place due to a consensus reached in a VfD with no objections. -- Kizor 21:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Use common name. Jonathunder 14:55, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, about 4 people mentioned a rename to this title, but:  "The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:09, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)".  Notice, not keep and move, just keep.  So I'll go with my own judgement, and "common name".  Of course, if they all showed up here and voted to oppose, that'd pretty much settle it.  Alai 02:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed move violates Naming conventions (common names) by substituting a neutral clinical name for one that is clearly offensive to some people.  This proposed move also fails to explain why this one term is prefered over other options such as Pyroflatulence, Fire fart, and Blue flaming. --Allen3 talk 15:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Because those aren't the most common names for it. grendel|khan 16:27, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
 * This addresses my secondary concern. See the discussion section for more on my primary objection. --Allen3 talk 18:35, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Profanity states "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." Using a vulgar term, when an equally applicable non-vulgar term is available, violates the spirit if not the letter of this policy.  As the word "fart" is listed as vulgar in many dictionaries, it should be avoided when practical.


 * If the proposed rename was made due to an objection to the name "Flatulence ignition", then I would recomend renaming the article Pyroflatulence. If the  request was made in the belief that "Fart lighting" was the only possible name, then the current policies on naming conventions and profanity come into play. --Allen3 talk 18:35, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I request changing the name of this article to the more formal "pyroflatulence"

Decision
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Common usage - I've never, ever heard it referred to as "flatulence ignition". violet/riga (t) 11:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Me neither. --MrTrilby 01:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag
This survived a VfD in March, why is it suddenly a candidate for speedy deletion? Tonywalton 18:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Add to references in popular culture
In one episode of Robot Chicken, as seen on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, a boy's fart is lighted and he begins to run really fast, as if he was a rocket. He runs as fast as a locomotive (in reference to Superman), and at the end, spins on the ground and blows up. Should this be recommended to add, as I am not very sure I am right and want some clearer details. --68.127.151.199 06:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, that was after the kid ate pop rocks and drank soda, in reference to the popular myth that doing such will make your stomach explode. At any rate, it has nothing to do with fart lighting. 142.59.135.116 05:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Inflammable / Flammable
I always thought farts were imflammable, like gasoline and stuff.


 * AFAIK, there is no such word as imflammable. Although it is a cause of some confusion, flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing: capable of burning. I'm not sure if it's true, but I once read that flammable was introduced for warning signs precisely because most people erroneously believed that inflammable meant the opposite (not capable of burning) of what it actually means, since they associated the initial in with the prefix in, meaning not. EmmetCaulfield 10:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

YouTube
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 17:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A link to "fart lighting" search was added, in this way we're simply stating the videos are out there without promoting a specific one. If some are removed for whatever reasons the search will still pull the ones that are there. Benjiboi 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WHAT ?
No picture ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.139.116.20 (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * covered in another section. Benjiboi 18:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)